Robert Howarth has maintained for three years that natural gas was capable of emitting more greenhouse gases than coal. Now, the professor of ecology and evolutionary biology has new research to back it up.

Coal gets all the attention for the carbon it emits at power plants, but natural gas is even worse, a Cornell University professor’s latest research suggests. Photo credit: Southern Natural Gas Company LLC/Flickr Creative Commons

“Carbon dioxide is only one greenhouse gas and the public tends to focus on it, and scientists as well,” Howarth told Boulder Weekly. “Methane is also a potent greenhouse gas. The latest information from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in the last seven or eight months, says that global methane emissions from human-caused sources now equal carbon dioxide in their effect on global warming.”

Howarth’s study arose from his examination of about 60 studies published since 2011. He spent so much time analyzing because he had heard natural gas propaganda for much of the previous two years, praising it as a bridge to a cleaner energy with a path away from foreign oil dependence. After teaming with Anthony Ingraffea and Renee Santoro, also of Cornell, he realized that natural gas actually a bridge to nowhere. His latest research drives that point home.

“While it is true that less carbon dioxide is emitted per unit [of] energy released when burning natural gas compared to coal or oil, natural gas is composed largely of methane, which itself is an extremely potent greenhouse gas,” the study’s introduction reads.

“Methane is far more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than is carbon dioxide, and so even small rates of methane emission can have a large influence on greenhouse gas footprints of natural gas use.”

The research is pertinent, given the current obsession with fracking for natural and shale across the U.S.

“Is natural gas a bridge fuel? At best, using natural gas rather than coal to generate electricity might result in a very modest reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions,” Howarth concludes, “if those emissions can be kept below a range of 2.4 to 3.2 percent.

“That is a big ‘if,’ and one that will require unprecedented investment in natural gas infrastructure and regulatory oversight.”

Comments

Trust No One

I don’t follow.
I thought the methane in natural gas was actually “burned” as fuel, converted into co2 and water in the process.

Don Hart

During the fracking process large amounts of methane are produced, far surpassing the C02 emissions of the actual burning of natural gas. But methane does burn off. Just turn on the water hose in any neighborhood with fracking nearby their well water and light up the water to see the fireworks display. Despite the assumption that methane is burned during use, large amounts of un-burned methane still are released. Methane is also naturally produced by multiple sources such as bogs, but this is used to further confuse people into accepting the large human created methane releases, which unbalance the natural abilities of the Earth to accept them. Massive political corruption hides the human produced methane and C02 as in the gas companies being exempted from clean water standards by the Bush/Cheney white house. Now Obama joins them in their corruption. Bi-partison corruption!

GoldenBoys

Wrong Again Donnie….You Really Need to Do a Little Reading:
NY Times, September 16, 2013
Drilling for shale gas through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, appears to cause smaller leaks of the greenhouse gas methane than the federal government had estimated, and considerably smaller than some critics of shale gas had feared, according to a peer-reviewed study released on Monday.
Related in Opinion

Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Enlarge This Image

Brennan Linsley/Associated Press
Workers tended to a well head in a hydraulic fracturing operation at Enana Oil and Gas well near Rifle, Colo., in March.
The study, conducted by the University of Texas and sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund and nine petroleum companies, bolsters the contention by advocates of fracking — and some environmental groups as well — that shale gas is cleaner and better than coal, at least until more renewable-energy sources are developed. More than 500 wells were analyzed.

The Texas study concluded that while the total amount of escaped methane from shale-gas operations was substantial — more than one million tons annually — it was probably less than the Environmental Protection Agency estimated in 2011.

In particular, it indicated that containment measures captured 99 percent of methane that escaped from new wells being prepared for production, a process known as completion.

Don Hart

I’ll assume the NY times story is based on the UTx study showing a reduction of 10% from a previous EPA study. While this was a good study, it isn’t representative of the entire industry, as only companies who volunteered to allow their sites to be monitored were involved, and the earlier study was prior to large improvements in fracking waste, which would seem to be followed better by volunteering companies. The earlier figure is still viable, but did only looked at contingent locations to actual well heads, so less reliable. More important, you’ve been had. The 10% reduction is from the earlier figure as well, which showed a 1000% increase in Methane emissions from earlier estimates. So it’s better, only a 900% increase, but still terrible. Which why the reporting on this is dishonest, whether by the NY times or any other source. It fails to show what the 10% reduction is from. Not the figures used during the original site construction.

I think he means that natrual gas leaks into the atmosphere. This is a valuable resource and should not be wasted. We should use it as a transportation fuel. It is much cheaper that gasoline or diesel. We should sell it to Europe to keep Russia out of European affairs.

SoCalTechGuy

This article is a scientist trying to get money for research and a journalist trying to make a name for himself. When natural gas is burned the methane is oxidized and no longer exists.

rattler15

Liberal journalists do not understand technical subjects and are incapable of conducting meaningful background research necessary to write a truthful article. They choose a conclusion, then find professors who write reports for more grants (follow the $). I do not believe the liberal media.

Don Hart

The methane emissions come during the fracking process, not so much during the combustiion of them.

Gary713

When you burn methane for fuel, you end up with carbon dioxide and water, there is no more methane afterwards. Professor Howarth is professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, I don’t suppose he understands the chemistry part.

S C

But that assumes the methods for extracting and burning methane have no leakage and no unburned fuel?

Chewy

sc, so what about the waste of your use of oxygen and the resultant exhaust of CO2- couldn’t we do without that???

GoldenBoys

Ahhhh the Natural Gas Bashers. Too bad they continue to deny the environmental hazards associated with their Holy Grail of “Renewable” Energy, Solar. None of the pushers of Solar want to tell you the real amont of energy and the toxic waste associated with the pre-production transportation of materials, the actual manufacturing toxic waste by-products, the energy consumption in the transport of competed panels AND the cost and energy demands of cleaning up post-production toxic waste. Sadly, when you look at the whole picture, Solar is no bargain and it’s total energy capability pales in comparison to Natual Gas. Given the terrible winter that many of us are still experiencing, I’ll take Natural Gas any day.

Don Hart

Pollution by manufacturing of solar produces a small fraction of the pollution that oil/coal, or gas do by themselves. The pollution in the Pennsylvania fracking fields alone is higher than all the solar manufacturing pollution in the entire US. Add in Wyoming and all the transportation costs of solar pollution are surpassed And that’s just tiny fraction of the fossil fuel pollution denialists get to pay for. But hundreds of millions of PR money does buy fools and dupes.

GoldenBoys

Oh please…Give us a frigging break.
This from AP February 2012:
The Associated Press relates:

Solyndra…reported producing about 12.5 million pounds of hazardous waste, much of it carcinogenic cadmium-contaminated water, which was sent to waste facilities from 2007 through mid-2011.

Before the company went bankrupt, leading to increased scrutiny of the solar industry and political fallout for President Barack Obama’s administration, Solyndra said it created 100 megawatts-worth of solar panels, enough to power 100,000 homes.

The records also show several other Silicon Valley solar facilities created millions of pounds of toxic waste without selling a single solar panel, while they were developing their technology or fine-tuning their production. [Emphasis added]

Don Hart

Your figures are correct on Solyndras waste. But since fracking fields pollute entire aquifers and river systems with trillions of gallons, the comparison isn’t sensible. Solyndra’s officials should be prosecuted, as should frackers, but their oil/gas/coals financial influence in congress has made them impervious, and they’ve even been exempted from any EPA regulations.

ronchris

fracking has polluted exactly 0 aquifers or streams.
Do you know how shallow water is and how deep oil & gas are?
Do you know what separates those two layers?

hankimbal

“””Pennsylvania fracking fields””””

LOL, what is a pennsylvania fracking field ????

thousanth disquss ID

hakimbal just take your stupid oil pension check and be happy you have some grubstake before we shut your oil thrash down? Now can you butt out of existence for your last few decades? You of course realize you don’t deserve to be standing on this planet, burning it for profit like there’s no tomorrow.

hankimbal

Wrong answer, you don’t know either !
Looks like I won this round, now come back when you can tell me what a “fracking field” is ?
lol

Vito Randazzo

Don you are full of horse manure. I guess you have never been to Bradford or sussquahana counties in PA. I live on the board have been asked to put sensors on my property so the drillers know exactly where to stop at the NYS line. And none of my friends are experencing your false claims above. PA is fine, Even the famed Dimock has had enough of the anti energy crowds lies and deceptions putting signs up how their air and water is fine and not to believe the hype. 20 miles from my home. Where is your real information coming from and I hope you do not say gasland.

Peter Osborne

The only seeping of methane from the northern oil/gas shale deposits are where the last three or so glaciers were parked. They were up to 8,000 feet thick. Drilling horizontal wells in these areas actually cut back the possibility of leaking methane.

Dan13

Seeing as the renewables are not a viable source of our economic and social needs, what do these progressives suggest, dropping our standard of living to sub-Sahara standards?

gary

actually, they view us a blight on the planet. they want us dead ,not breathing. no Winchester’s ,no breathing. uh oh, too many Winchester’s.

sbleve

Speaking of TNC? The religion that allows a trusted small group to determine life and death on the planet. Humans or at least most need to be greened, the Soylent verity.

Don Hart

Renewables are a far superior source of both energy and our social needs than oil, gas & coal could ever remotely be. Solar/wind have gone from less than 1% of the US energy used in 5 years to almost 7% now and are expected to be at 20% in as little as 10 years. Hydro and geothermal add another 14%. Even without the use of valuable batteries, solar can be the major energy source during the day, while wind is stronger at night(yes it is, above 100-200 ft it blows most of the time but is best at night). Meanwhile, they don’t cause the massive water pollution of gas fracking, oil, and coal, or the air pollution of all three. The more destruction, the more social fracturing happens, as people have fewer choices to live comfortably, get sicker and see the overwhelming corruption of nearly all of our congress people. That’s as bad a social effect as any. If renewable ever got anywhere near as much tax support as the big fossil fuel three, they’d have already taken ove. The oil/gas/coal industries get over 70% of all the tax subsidies(These figures are from the conservative Nuclear Energy Institute: http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf,) while poisoning the rest of us. But hundreds of millions of dollars in PR activity have duped millions of Americans into thinking otherwise. (The Guardian: 2010)

Dan13

Solar power can only work half the time, in temperate zones. As one gets closer to,the poles solar power gets worse for half the year.
Wind farms do not work when the wind doesn’t blow hard enough, or, blows too hard.
If renewables were viable then they would supplant oil.
The fact of the matter is that progressives will be directly responsible for the death of those who succumb to the heat this summer during one of the rolling blackout that will result from the actions of Obama and the EPA.
I hope it’s not your grandmother that is sacrificed to your delusions that hydroelectric and the others can meet the needs of the American public.

Don Hart

Grandmas rarely died from overheating prior to our dependence on fossil fuels, as they used time honored ways to cool their homes. You can see this in building older than 70 years with the windows above the doors to release heat and architecture that promoted cross breezes. Solar does only provide energy 8-10 hours a day (with no pollution for your grandma to die from.) and wind only owrks when it blows. But wind is best at night above 100″ when those of us on the ground think there’s no wind. With improving batteries solar will replace the horribly polluting fossil fuels. The majority of new added energy in the last year has been from solar and wind, 74%, without the fracking/coal water pollution, and all three polluting everywhere. Your understanding of energy production is a recreation of the distant past promoted by politically corrupting fossil fuel companies and investors. It’s 2014, not 1984, though the corrupt politics of fossil fuels PR lies make it look like “1984”. Fortunately even conservatives are getting on the home solar/wind/hydro wagon and reducing their energy costs. My personal energy costs went from $240 a month to $45, from mostly just conservation and insulation, making my small solar array almost good enough for Zero on grid needs. And I live in the dark cloudy Northwest, and even during rain and the darkest weather I get solar energy, just less of it. But you think solar has been caught in the past, like yourself, when in fact it has dramatically improved it’s efficiency’s, while fossil fuels fall farther and farther behind. Germany, Denmark and Holland are close to parity and the US will be there within a few years. Only corruption keeps fossil fuels in power. We will always have fossil fuels, but as minority energy sources, unless the fossil fuels industry continues to dupe people like you with PR lies. And my grandma never had to worry about dying from the heat, because she was born and raised before fossil fuels dominated the landscape. She knew how to stay cool, and never had an AC, nor did anyone else 50 years ago.

Madash050

Anyone who believes solar and wind can provide the bulk of our energy needs, at present technologies, is a fool. Wind energy is an intermittent source that is only 34% reliable. Solar is worse. How do you store the energy you need on demand when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t’ blow? Coal, gas and nuclear can be counted to deliver energy on demand over 90% of the time. Every kilowatt hour of “renewable” needs to be backed up by coal, case, and nuclear capability. Only corruption keeps big wind and solar in business and the green industry continues to dupe people like you with PR lies.

thousanth disquss ID

Wait till we shut you up with solar wind downdraft tower. Runs all the time as long as it’s hot and dry in the desert. I can’t wait for them to plug you peoples mouth with that thing.

hankimbal

Off the meds again ?

thousanth disquss ID

On your fracking break again?

hankimbal

Why are you even here ? you are obviously clueless on the subject and have nothing solid to add.
BTW, did you know that electricity doesn’t just come out of the wall ?

Don Hart

I don’t know where you got your figures of 34% for wind and 90% for fossil fuels, but these appear to be wrong. Let’s make it simple Just the down times for repair of any conventional fossil fuel sources is an average of 12% of the time, so 88% at best, but this doesn’t include any distribution problems, or financial corruption as in the CAL brown-outs of the early 2000’s. While the reliability of wind is lower than fossil fuels, it also provides varying amounts of energy, stronger wind more power, something not accounted for in reliability figures, and no fossil fuels change their levels of energy production, despite minor increases in efficiency, particularly in comparison to wind and solar. Hydro and geothermal are also included in renewable’s corner, and can both grow dramatically. I wish I’d chosen a geothermal heat-pump over solar electric, and hope I can do this in a few years. It’s much more efficient than solar or wind for building heating. The growth in renewables has been only partially due to large industrial plants, but in more so in smaller production plants, as in home/local versions. New large hydro plants are going to be primarily tidal and wave motion, and several European countries already do this far more than the US, but all will grow substantially in the next few years. Many plants and home usage show planned production to continue their additions at levels even faster than the 35% year after year increases seen in the last 5 years. And still, we have a grid because no sources are reliable enough for 24/7/365. I already get some energy from a home solar array, which with simple conservation, such as insulation, and passive solar changes in my home have already reduced my costs from $250 a month to $45. And I can make small improvements over the next few years to get to zero on-grid needs. Unless you try to count propane tanks as off the grid, there is no getting the fossil fuel vampires off my neck, except better buildings and ever cheaper solar/wind/hydro/geothermal at home. And I still add a lot less to the worlds pollution than any fossil fuels, which if theses externalized cost were added to the real costs of fossil fuels would put oil/coal/gas out of business the same day they were required to pay for their pollution.

Holly

Do you hear yourself?? What an idiot.

ferdiefor

Germans pay 3x what we pay in utility bills. Solar and wind will not be viable until you can find a way for long distance transmission without significant drop off in viable strength. The big solar array near the California/Nevada border takes up a significant amount of land and serves very few homes. That has to be figured out. People with old solar systems cannot get servicing done on them when they crap out because those companies are no longer in business and no one knows how to service them.
No, solar is many many years away from being a viable alternative source.
We cannot afford utility bills 3x higher than now and Obama won’t be president so he won’t be in a position to create more dependency on government with more subsidies that we cannot afford.
If you want to live like your grandma OK but do everyone a favor and don’t tell us how we should live. We have had our fill of you and your ilk’s self-righteous BS.

basno

The cost hits low income people the most since they pay a higher % of their income on basics like energy.

Don Hart

There are a lot of anti statements here, and in many other postings, so just picked ferdiefor as an example of mistaken ideas on energy production. All Europeans pay higher energy costs, and none of this is due to renewable’s, but to all the higher costs of fuel, and this has always been true, despite PR by the fossil fuels industry to try and confuse you as to the real costs of various energy production. So the 3x figure is an apples/oranges comparison. And that’s with homes and cars in Euriope which are far more efficient than America’s. The solar array on the CA/NV border provides enough energy for 140,000 homes, so that’s hardly “very few homes”. Old solar can be replaced with newer more efficient arrays, and companies are making gradually making profits on replacements. These replacements cost about the same as replacing an oil/gas furnace, and solar arrays typically have comparable lifetimes to these fossil fuel furnaces of about 25 years. Both do lose efficiency’s as they age, but again at comparable levels. And while you want to try and make the 3x figure again, just remember, every year the efficiency’s of solar and wind are exploding upwards, while fossil fuels only make small improvements in efficiency’s. Nobody suggested you have to return to pre-1960’s cooling methods, but don’t equate poor housing design with smart energy use. You use AC because you have to, not because your architect/builder thought to design a better home which won’t place you at the mercy of the thieves in the fossil fuel industry. I went from energy bills of $240 a month to $45, including insulation and other conservation technologies, and I only add pollution from that reduced $45, so dupes like U can breathe safer, and you or your children won’t have to fight stupid wars in the middle east to protect our energy needs, which really means the investments of fossil fuel investors.

Dan13

To recap: you accuse me of living in the past, and then lecture me on how no one will die from the heat brought on by brown and black-outs because your grandmother knew how to handle the heat 50 years ago.
Yeah! That’s the blueprint for good intentions without bothering to check the results of the policy implementation.

Peter Osborne

There was AC i 1964. My parents crs had ac in them. I bought al old Jag. sedan that had AC, it was a 1961 car. Before AC they used “Swamp Coolers” evaporation based, there was even a model you could put in your car’s side window. Refrigeration goes back about 100 years, and before had ice houses and cut the ice off frozen lakes and ponds. Stored it in ice the houses and shipped it every where the rail system went. A local ice house was built in ground from mortar and rock with a wood roof insulated with old corn cobs.

basno

In 5 years? The useless Dept of Energy was created by Jimmy Carter and we spend $26 billion a year on it to encourage/develop alternative energy sources.
Could have spent far less planting trees to remove CO2 from that atmosphere with greater success and a lot less deficit spending.

Tim Chrisolm

Methane is CH4. If you strike the C (carbon) you have hydrogen (H2). Then you take H2O (water) and strike the O (Oxygen) to bond to the C, which gives you carbon monoxide (CO), plus more hydrogen after striking the O from the H2O. At the proper ratio of H2O to CH4 it (3:1 respectively) provides the extra O to bond to the CO and make CO2 (carbon dioxide). Then you have an abundance of hydrogen which burns very clean, although the process requires heat, pressure and several types of catalyst and carbon dioxide, which is also marketable. And that concludes today’s chemistry lesson))

Catskinner

Did you flunk chemistry?

Tim Chrisolm

Why do you ask?

Mike Gilli

There is an alternative, only it’s not profitable enough for the fossil fuel monopoly.
There’s a simple answer to climate change that’s been available all along.

Really? You don’t believe me? The answer is to switch to a proven, cheaper,
safer, CO2-free fuel that is also non toxic when used and would have saved,
according to the WHO, seven million air pollution deaths last year.

So why not do it?? If groups like EcoWatch were to promote NH3 it
could finally take off.!!

Tim Chrisolm

Ammonia for fuel? Hmmm. I’ve never heard of that before. But if you strike the N from NH3 you’d have hydrogen so it certainly seems doable.

Peter Osborne

CO2 from humanity does not drive climate change. It is driven by the Sun, its’ energy cycles, Earth’s orbit shape, tilt and wobble, an d the location of the continents . The thing that keeps us in a repeating 100,000 year glacial period and a 15-20,000 year interglacial period is the fact that the Antarctic sits on the South Pole. The ice sitting on the land at the South Pole creates a cold spot so intense that in times of low solar energy,glaciers start north and south from the poles. They reverse when the Sun’s cycles re-warm the Earth. CO2 is a lagging indicator that climate has changed, not the driver. Human caused CO2 accounts for 0.11% of atmospheric warming. Water Vapor 95%.
go to

There’s no logical reason to use fossil fuels to produce electricity in the US. You could easily increase the number of nuclear reactors at existing nuclear sites to eliminate all need for fossil fuels to produce electricity. And you would also produce a lot of high paying jobs in the process.

The technology to convert biowaste from urban and rural waste products into methanol has been in existence for decades. And methanol can be easily converted into gasoline or dimethyl ether for vehicles that use diesel fuel.

However, biowaste conversion usually waste about 80% of its carbon continent. But if hydrogen were added, biofuel production could potentially be increased by five times. Off peak electricity from nuclear and renewable power plants could be used to produce the hydrogen.

Marcel

Tim Chrisolm

Nuclear is great. What kinda time frame are we looking at though for permitting and building nuclear plants and then bringing them on line? Nuclear power generation isn’t w/o it’s own controversy so it could be decades before the first plant is operational. And according to Obama if we don’t find a way to curb CO2 emissions by day after tomorrow, it’ll be too late.

Peter Osborne

Household garbage well, as in landfills, convert to methane, which can be tapped directly at the landfill. Now it is flared off. As was done in WW2 by the Germans, methane is no being converted in to diesel. Needless to say, as methane has no sulfur, it is very clean diesel. With the correct zeolites catalysts methane can make synthetic oil and gasoline.

nick_maxell1

looks nice in your summary – but where would the energy breaking the bonds come from? – most what you say needs an input of energy which in balance would be negative instead of providing energy – alone seperating Water into H2 and O takes a lot of energy -same goes for methane as all bonds are satisfied you have to put energy in to break them – all things considered – back to chemistry 101

Peter Osborne

Yes indeed, why not take a substance that needs only an imitating imput of a small amount of energy and is then a self sustaining exothermic reaction until either he fuel source or oxygen is cut. Like, say, an electrical spark and methane?
The USA is blessed with a vast proved reserve o Natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in NYS and points south, to the deposits in TX. LA, AK CA,CO.WY,MT OH, WVA, and other states so we should use it. After all, there is more than enough for shale methane to power all America for several centuries by itself.
At the same time, the miniature , and small nuclear plants should be integrated into electrical energy system. These are very safe.and inexpensive, producing electricity for about 5 cents a KW/hr. But the Luddites are still with us, and it will take time.

nick_maxell1

Well using these ressources is probably a shortterm stopgap – nothing else – the argument “for several centuries” is simply wrong – most of the shale gas production goes down over 50% in the first year and declines further – so the hype will be over in 5-10 years with only leaving a mess if not earlier – look up the studies – most of the wells for it are not even paying for what was invested – this gas is an option to whean off but for sure not a longtime solution (who invests in a pipeline or a plant to convert it into LPG if the source runs dry after a couple of years?)

Peter Osborne

nick , please check the figures on the proved and unproved resources from the various shale formations across the nation. You will be surprised at how extensive and plentiful they are here in the USA. Combined with Canada and Alaska the USA’s reserves of energy exceed the Saudi reserves and the whole of the mid east combined. The N. American continent with tar sands included, could become the world’s largest energy exporter and be quite a bit more wealthy. Could, but this current administration seems more interested in just about anything else as long as it is inconsequential..

Tim Chrisolm

Exactly right. That’s the complexity of it. It’s like chasing your tail. Methane (heat) is required. Somewhere around 1500 degrees, 450 PSI, nickel reforming catalyst to break the methane/water bonds, and iron chromium catalyst to make CO to CO2. Also the water used in this process must be demineralized to keep from melting the reformer. So it;s complicated and costly.

gary

get rid of the democrats in 2014 16.

barry

I think the professor is emitting a lot of mmethane.

newpapyrus

Time to fully embrace the safest and the most environmentally benign energy source ever invented: nuclear energy. Per kilowatt produced, solar photovoltaic energy produces at least 10,000 times more toxic waste than nuclear energy thanks to then enormous amounts of toxic materials required to manufacture solar power plants. Solar power plants also require at least 100 times more land area to create energy relative to nuclear energy.

Marcel

Don Hart

This is such lying slop. 10,00 times the toxic wastes?!? Simply stupid enough to laugh at.

newpapyrus

If you’re– really concerned– about protecting the Earth’s environment then you should know what you’re talking about!

But the land that is required is not damaged. The water and toxins left over can be filtered and safely disposed if or reused. Since the solar industry is scrutinized so intensely I’m sure this will happen, too unlike all the other energy industries.

paulroden

Does an accident at a solar manufacturing or solar farm contaminate the area the size of Pennsylvania? Does it produce waste that as large as the wastes from uranium mining and spent fuel? Where do you get water that is not contaminated from fracking or nuclear power and uranium refining? You can’t drink money! Read thesolutionsproject.org. We don’t need nuclear power or fossil fuel.

I guess we just have to get used to being cold in the winter and hot in the summer. Well, I’ve been there and done that back in the 50’s and I am never going back there. Eco nuts be damned.

dune69

With the abundance of natural gas why are we not using it to power fuel cells? If mass produced they can be economical referenced from the man that made them for NASA. Then of course we will have too much water vapor altering the climate

notfooledagain

95% ofthe greenhouse gas effect is water vapor, CO2 is 3.2% and only about 3% of that is caused by burning fossil fuel, so man has control of 0.28% of the CO2, that is only 3% to start with. Man made global warming BS.

thousanth disquss ID

still, were ending the exhaust pipe of the automobile you force us to continue to breath for your profits. Try to stay on the subject.

Kevin Schmidt

Fossil fuel industry propaganda BS.

‘We know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased because we have measured it. We know the climate has warmed from current and historical data. The link between increasing greenhouse gases and increasing temperature is clear: just as ink makes water more colored, CO2 makes the atmosphere more absorbing. The extra CO2 in our atmosphere is trapping energy that would otherwise escape to space. The measured global warming matches closely with the amount of energy trapped from the greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere.

A doubling of the trace molecule CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm is still a trace, but just like with arsenic, the difference between a small trace and a larger trace is fatal.’

Answer this for me.
At one time, 10,000 to 20,000 years ago
scientist tell us that a lot of North America was covered in an ice
sheet a mile thick, I think it must be warmer now than it was then,
but I don’t think me driving my car caused the ice sheet to melt, for
that matter I don’t think it was people that caused it to melt.

What caused the ice sheet, and what
caused it to melt?

Science Officer

Why don’t we try doing whatever Mother Nature has been up to, for the last 17 years? She’s pretty much managed to stop the global warming, without any help from us.

S C

billions of years ago an intelligent race developed on Venus, but the republican like party of its time said don’t worry about the carbon dioxide buildup, was all a trick by their scientist. But then the runaway greenhouse effect happened in spite of what their tea party types said and burned the planet to a crisp!!!

Joebachi6

Really!?! Is that your liberal argument for “global warming”?????

john

Now prepare to support another liberal policy which will make even more poor people
The government pensions though will get even better

Chewy

Dan Hart, I see you think that you are so much more intellectual than the rest of us peons and you spew so many variables out as being concrete data!!! Please tell us the answer to this small question- Which is more harmful to our life here on earth- !5% more oxygen or 15% more CO2 added to our atmosphere??? Bet you can’t answer correctly and you can even investigate BEFORE you bloviate!!!

Don Hart

As a nurse I know that oxygen at these increased levels can kill. But this has nothing to do with the C02 discussion.

Chewy

Dan, see you are even given the opportunity to investigate it before you bloviate and you won’t even do that because you are too lazy!!! The 15% increase that I speak of would NOT kill us by just inhaling it!!! You are a supposed nurse and don’t even know this! 15% more of the 21% of oxygen that is in our atmosphere would put it in the 24% range!!! (First you need to be intelligent enough to figure out percentages- I see that you aren’t). This range is NOT harmful to our breathing it because heart patients in hospitals are given much higher ratios than this just to survive!!! BUT, at this level, the flora and fauna around us would be ‘auto-igniting’ from the increase level and the decreased amount of moisture in the atmosphere! In other words, everything around us would be burning up and there would be a burning sensation on our unclothed skin. See- you think you are smarter than others just because you are a nurse but you only succeeded in showing your lack of intellect as one!!! I gave you every opportunity to investigate it and yet you think you are smarter than us just because you are a nurse!!! AND, this is relevant because a 15% rise in CO2 levels would still be below 400 parts per million or under .04% of the gases in our atmosphere!!! BUT, since you DON’T investigate anything for yourself (even when given every opportunity to do so), you don’t know these things! You just take it for granted that your side is right and our side is wrong- even when shown factual data!!! AND it is CO2 (one molecule of carbon and two molecules of oxygen- not as you wrote it as two molecules of carbon). It is hard to carry on an intelligent discussion with someone that is so lazy as to not keep themselves informed without ONLY listening to their side bloviate!!!

kcy2014

The damned Warmists won’t let go until we go back to living in caves.

Lockmanxo

How dare you criticize the Obama Administrations plan to further cripple America’s economy with facts. Be careful, the IRS will be snooping.

bob smith

I was outside today and a piece of the sky fell and hit my head! Watch out everybody!

Roxanne Palmer

Turn off all electricity—that’s the answer—make sure these fascists–get to suffer—the most.

ferdiefor

Basno,
Make no mistake liberals do not care about the poor when it conflicts with political agendas.
Everyone needs to be reminded of Hillary Clinton’s statement about riots in Mexico City relating to the high cost of corn. She was more concerned about the politics of ethanol than the plight of Mexico’s poor that had led to rioting because the poor could no longer afford corn for tortilla making which of course is a main staple in their diet.
Hillary had to back away from her statement but it shows the liberal mind set. When it is rich against poor they always stand with the poor but when it is the poor versus the environment or any political agenda it will be the climate or political agenda that stands ahead of the poor even if it means starvation for the poor.

Kevin Schmidt

Gee, they’re just like the conservatives now.

lawrence

I think anyone who went to college knows that professors are usually outdated and wrong.

impy

And socialists that you better agree with in the paper you turn in lest you get a D for content.

Kevin Schmidt

You would get an E for grammar.

impy

You are correct but I didn’t know my post was being graded.

Kevin Schmidt

I think anyone who GRADUATED college thinks differently than you.

lawrence

I graduated, with honors but 32 years ago. Of course they THINK that today: When you’re told what to think, instead of taught how to think. Today’s professors are mostly chicken-sh!t dummies without the balls to get a real job. The fact you state otherwise, despite the mountains of evidence is proof you aren’t very bright. Our education system’s effectiveness declines every year and has been doing so for decades.

Kevin Schmidt

Where is your proof that, “professors are usually outdated and wrong”? Where is your proof that, “Today’s professors are mostly chicken-sh!t dummies without the balls to get a real job”?

At my university, those kind of professors would be fired.

Those who make spurious claims, but don’t back them up with real evidence, and instead spew illogical and uncivil ad homenims are the ones who “aren’t very bright.”

Obviously, you went to the wrong college.

lawrence

Proof? You must be joking. Or rather, you should be. Name a university that fires professors. As stated: our education system declines every year. Is that the students’ fault? I went to UCLA — is that the wrong college? Even in the 80s the professors were techno-clueless.

It’s interesting how you prefer to attack me rather than the evidence of Big Education’s destruction of our system. But then, that’s how lefties think and how they’re trained. You spew what you were told to think. You never learned how to think. Bravo.

Big Education is as horrible as Big Oil and Big Pharma. But they’re actually worse because they only go after children. They saddle them with massive debt and teach them nothing.

Keep drinking your KoolAid though, since it makes you feel so intelligent.

TruGhost OfBo

♫ There’s NoBull like GloBull ♫
♪ Like NoBull I know ♪

♫ There’s no people like GloBull people ♫
♪ They lie about what they don’t know ♪

Jonjon006

these a holes just hate people… or they love money more

buddy1860 .

Why aren’t we using Thorium to generate electricity? Is it because it doesn’t produce uranium, or is it because we can use regular rock,dirt or sand to make it? Is it because it is easy to produce? Is it because it
doesn’t produce Co2? Is it because the oil companies won’t allow it? Why did Nixon stop research in the 70’s? Why did we allow China to have the information to build Thorium reactors?

Watch “Car Runs For 100 Years Without Refueling – The Thorium” on You Tube

Watch anything about Edward Bernays. He is the father of U.S. Propaganda

Kevin Schmidt

We aren’t using it because no one has built a functional thorium reactor yet, including China.

Adolphusw

This article merely demonstrates the true agenda of the warmists, destroy modern civilization.

Kevin Schmidt

Your comment merely demonstrates the propaganda agenda of the fossil fuel industries; destroy modern civilization AND the planet.

Ron Stave

gas like all the other fuels that burn up our atmosphere takes away more and more of the earths protection from cosmic rays of the sun and beyond. when all that extra radiation gets through our atmosphere it heats us up faster and faster.

hankimbal

That does it for me !!. I’m quitting everything move to the woods and build a lean to and hope i catch a squirrel to eat, unless someone out there has a problem with that ?

Billy Flune

Squirrel killer!!!!!

hankimbal

LOL !!, sorry i ate your squirrel

Robert Kanga

We need far fewer liberals on planet Earth

Vito Randazzo

These three anti energy activists are full of crap. Since we all knew methane and natural as are one in the same this entire article is a joke. Frankly if you are just pumping natural gas out of the ground and letting it float away that may be the case, BUT since it is being piped and transported to power plants and being burned it is not longer methane or natural gas. Its clowns like these guys that make me wonder how stupid to people have to be to listen and support their idiotic logic.

Keel

id just like to say that your freaking stupid if you support the natural gas industry at all. DONT SUPPORT FRACKING. It pollutes underground water reserves they just, want people focused on air quality while they destroy all the underground water tables WAKE UP PEOPLE SURELY ITS TIME.

Stanley

Some wells are not so good before fracking. Natural gas is as good a source of energy as any other. If your concerned about man made global warming, smash your car and turn of the natural gas supply to your house. Basically stop using carbon source of energy. Start a farm and feed yourself. No solar cells. You need energy to produce and ship them to you. By the EPA website says sea temperatures haven’t risen in about 15 years. Just think all that CO2 pumper into the air and sea temps haven’t risen in 15 years. That’s why its not global warming any more its climate change a more ambiguous unmeasurable term. Wonder how the believers justify the change.

Kevin Schmidt

Gee, you know more than all the climate scientists and every scientific organization in the world!
Not.

Johnny Beacham

Just think we have people like this teaching our kids.No wonder why the education level of our 20 to 40 age group is so poor.America must use Oil Coal Natural Gas before wasting money on Green Energy that is to expensive an does’nt work.Why did God place these on earth for us to use if they could’nt used.Climate change Global warming has nothing to do with anything an isn’t caused by man period.

DaveMurphy4561

Take the CARBON from Natural Gas and you have NH3! “ROCKET FUEL” burn it in fuel cells and cars we have now!

PROPANE GAS FRACKING;

Creating a buzz—one well at a time

What’s new at GASFRAC

GASFRAC’s waterless LPG fracturing solution is making waves in the
oil and gas industry. From innovation awards to industry and media
reports, people are taking notice as we change the oil and gas sector
one well at a time.

I believe Germany is rethinking their fracking policy- will nuclear follow?

Moe Higgins

The bottom line is that with the progressives is that unless the energy is derived from the sun, wind, or motion of the sea, it is bad for us and is destroying the earth. This is another article by a scientist who is playing to the political agenda of the left in the hopes of getting more funds to support his phony research.

Patriotic American

Uh oh…the carbon dioxide debate is falling on it’s face…better shift gears to another man made gas deal so we can control that too. It’s a no win scenario with liberals…

gary

get rid of the democrats in 2014 16. impeach Obama now and eric holder too.

ohiodale

I think the human race should all get sterilized at birth and in 80 years humans will no longer exist. Kidding of course. This is the only solution to these crazy environmentalists. Humans leave an environmental footprint as do every single living plant, animals, and insect on our planet. Liberals are so idealistic. Stop listening to college professors who have never produced a single thing in their lives. Anybody can read a text book and recite what they read. Colleges are made to expands ones mind but most of what you learn is not to be taken literally. Get some common sense folks. College professors are educated fools and my wife is one so I know many of them. My wfie is not a fool and doesn’t buy into her liberal art co-worker’s rhetoric. Had to clear this up in case my wife see my comment.

SA Bender

“A Bridge to Nowhere”? Great headline! Why read whatever Blather would follow such a premise? Natural Gas has the potential to free us from dependance on foreign oil, while we develop alternative energy sources and strategies. Duh…That could be a Bridge to Prosperity and Security…Hardly “Nowhere”, unless you don’t value those.

Ron Stave

If you think natural gas is good , imagine a large earthquake hitting California breaking the gas lines apart and burning most of the state.

woodauger

with asthma rates soaring, there is more to consider than greenhouse gasses only

tmalthus2010

Your lungs routinely contain 40,000 ppm CO2 that you exhale with each breath. So you’ve bought into the insanity that the 400 ppm CO2 you inhale to replace the 40,000 ppm CO2 already there causes asthma? Maybe you deserve to lose all your money and freedom.

woodauger

I don’t know why you quote C02 aggravates asthma, as the fine particulate has been implicated – as it has in diesel exhaust also. It matter little, though. The lower cost of the gas is the great American equalizer, as it has always been

tmalthus2010

Because scrubbers and bag houses take out the fine particulate.

woodauger

But industry has already effectively lobbied against scrubbers – Go to clean coal dot org, since you already seem to support them. It’s the coal industry’s own website, and refutes your notion that scrubbers are used everywhere

joe10082

Natural gas is a bridge to a more robust U.S. economy. We currently do not export, to my knowledge, natural gas to Europe. The European nations are currently held hostage to Gasprom located in Russia. These nations need an alternative supplier and that would the United States. Supplying Europe with natural gas would bolster our ailing economy and at the same time free European nations of their reliance upon Russia. Russia’s economy is largely based upon natural gas sales. Remove this economic platform from them and you weaken their economy greatly. There aggressive military activities in the Ukraine would be undermined simply because the funds needed to maintain hostile activities would no longer be available. They would cease their expansionist outlook seeing the consequences of what it costs them in natural gas sales.

tmalthus2010

The bottom line is that the only acceptable energy form to the manic lunatic Warmer Cult is wind and solar, the same as primitive humans used before they did stuff like discover fire and invent civilization.

BuddyGC

More methane escapes the atmosphere than was previously believed..
At least according to NASA scientist who have been tracking methane for 40 years.
The only reason he comes up with more methane is not because it’s a scientific fact
It’s because he is using a different method of measuring methane leakage.
One thing about environmental science, once you prove their wrong they will switch how C02 and methane is measured

P P

I don’t understand the article… When you burn natural gas/methane, CO and CO2 are produced. The methane gets burned. So what’s the problem with methane?

Marc

What the progressives really don’t see is that the real risk is not keeping our energy output well above the requirement. Much of our ability to produce food and clothing, the basic necessity stuff we need is directly tied to energy. e.g. this is why World War II was fought and why Hilter seemed to believe the final solution for the Jews was extermination. Reduce the head count and the world could be more prosperous. That is why certain people have compared the current administration to the Third Reich. The Third Reich is where many of the original synthetic and alternate energy ideas originated because they were energy and in particular oil deficient. They are trying to take us down the same path. I, for one, plan on resisting every way I legally can. We need oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind and wave power.

Steve

“While it is true that less carbon dioxide is emitted per unit [of] energy released when burning natural gas compared to coal or oil, natural gas is composed largely of methane, which itself is an extremely potent greenhouse gas,” the study’s introduction reads.
I am confused, who is releasing natural gas into the air? We are discussing emissions from combustion aren’t we?! Not cow farts or uncontroled releases of natural gas into the atmosphere.

Steve

A quick lesson natural gas is combusted to generate base power load requirements, it can also run in gasoline engines. It burns cleaner than coal with less green house gas emissions and yes it’s mosr composed of methane which is combusted. Solar power is not efficient enough to suppy westerners constant power demands. Wind trubines are functional when the wind blows at least 3 meters/sec and the energy can’t be stored. Renewables are great but the base power load comes from fossel fuels. Renewables cannot yet met our nations power needs no matter how much we wish they could.

adam_s_0625

The good doctor is correct that methane is a more potent GHG compared to CO2. However, he stokes the fires of alarmism unjustifiably. Methane absorbs radiation in only 3 bands. One of those bands is where the Sun produces very little output. Another is where neither the Sun nor the Earth produce output. The last is where the Earth does have some output but must compete with H2O. The bottom line is that the good doctor’s concern over methane is tremendously overblown.

Yomomma

Atmospheric methane 1800 ppb by 2011, an increase by a factor of 2.5 since pre-industrial
times, from 722 ppb, the highest value in at least 800,000 years. 1800 parts per billion so 1800000 parts per million. We only have 400 parts per million of CO2. A small change in CO2 is a bigger problem because its such a small number. It does take a bigger number to become a problem with methane. However I doubt the nature of the scientists warnings on methane, I believe big oil wants them to distract from CO2 emissions so they want to wag the dog. Who is funding this research?

Cg

“Methane is also a potent greenhouse gas. The latest information from
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in the
last seven or eight months, says that global methane emissions from
human-caused sources now equal carbon dioxide in their effect on global
warming.”

That’s why we may have passed the point of no return and entered into Global Thermal Runaway.

GLOBAL THERMAL RUNAWAY is when global warning eats up the last glaciers, (3
left now out of 50 in Glacier Nat’l l Park) raising sea levels even more than
the last report from Columbia U. and increasing the melting of the permafrost
and warming of the oceans.

GLOBAL THERMAL RUNAWAY can happen when the largest global reserve of
Methane, a much better greenhouse gas than CO2, Methane which is presently
locked up in ICE is melting *everywhere*. This incredible monster reserve of
energy is called Methane Hydrate (a clathrate) and is composed of ‘molecular
size soccer balls of water’ with one molecule of Methane trapped inside each
ball. Since each ball is composed of 16 to 30 FROZEN water molecules, the tiny
balls are being threatened to melt by Global WARMING. When the permafrost,
exposed more and more in the Arctic Ocean, (think polar bears without ice),
begin melting, this will release more and more Methane further raising Global
Temperatures causing more melting.

At some point, possibly already past, the level of CO2 that mankind is now
belching into the atmosphere will no longer matter, because, like a savings account that doubles in value
every day, so will be the quantities of methane being released to GLOBAL
THERMAL RUNAWAY.

This threat of increased Global Warming is a MILLION times more dangerous
than Global Climate change because of
the threat it offers for GLOBAL THERMAL RUNAWAY.

Wetback

Hydrocarbons need to be reserved for where they are needed most. Pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and plastics.

We are blowing our resources by burning them at the tailpipe.

Pro poor

to Arican country is era of natural gas,coal and oil that how is so challenge to think globally if you reduce your carbon footprint how about African fracking,